In Helen Mirren's brilliant, moving, inspiring acceptance speech at a recent Women in Hollywood event, she delivered a forceful rebuke of Hollywood's obsession with "the 18 to 25-year-old male…and his penis (quite small, I always think)."

Mirren lamented the "fact that virtually every drama made for film, stage or television has 20 male characters to the one, two, maybe three if you're lucky, female characters."

Advertisement

I decided to test Mirren's supposition against the recently released Golden Globe nominations. This is obviously not a cross-section of all that TV or film has to offer, but The Golden Globes represent an industry standard of perceived quality. Consequently, Mirren would be more likely to find roles of substance in these nominees, than in, for example, The Bachelorette, 90210 or The Back-Up Plan.

A word on methodology: The statistics below are based on the official cast lists presented on each show's network website. Rather than using my own judgement (or the judgment of IMDB, Wikipedia, etc) to decide which characters merit inclusion, I wanted to see how each network officially depicted its cast. For example, AMC's Mad Men site names 27 characters, 12 of whom are female, netting a "score" of 44%.

Best Television Series (Drama):Boardwalk Empire (27% of listed characters are female)Dexter (29%)Walking Dead (33%)Mad Men (44%)The Good Wife (50%)Best Television Series (Drama) AVERAGE: 37%

Yikes. One drama achieves gender parity in its casting, The Good Wife, a project from husband-wife team Robert and Michelle King. Michelle King is the only female "creator" of the five drama nominees. Even shows created by women (30 Rock, The Big C, Nurse Jackie) favor roles for male actors. Although the comedy category average is not quite as dire as the dramas, this average is hugely helped by Glee, the only nominated show with more female characters than male (without Glee, the category averages 36%).

The differences in category averages between big and small screens are only a few percentage points, but the distribution within categories don't line up. Film, it would seem, allows for one or two female-driven pictures. Black Swan, set in a dance studio, starring 4 women and 1 man, would be this year's entry.

The point is not for all productions to reserve exactly half of their roles for women (or minorities, the elderly, or any other oft-neglected demographic). Some shows are aimed at women (SATC) and others at men (Entourage) and their casting reflects this fact. The problem is that what we identify as quality, via awards shows like the Golden Globes, distinctly favors male actors. This creates a cycle in which male-dominated productions are considered the "norm," and gender-neutral casts or female-heavy casts are relegated to niche markets or less popular networks.

Advertisement

One could argue that Hollywood reflects reality…most police departments are male-dominated, as are boxing rings, and tech-start ups. That is both true and problematic. Yet, the question remains; why are the male-dominated arenas the ones in which people prefer to play creatively? Because women (self very much included!) will watch a show or movie set in a "male world," but men will not reciprocate? Projects set in traditionally female worlds (say a preschool or an ice skating team) either don't get made, don't get made well, or get made well and don't get recognized. Any way you cut it, Helen Mirren has a point.